2220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
2220 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
34973 readers
116 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This girl could have had a legal abortion in the first 5 months of the pregnancy. Abortion is legal where she is, Roe v Wade being repealed changed nothing.
As for Roe v Wade, even those that are pro-abortion like myself can understand why it was overturned. Abortions aren't a "privacy" issue like Roe v Wade was used to claim they are.
You don't know her life so no, you have no way of saying for sure whether she could.
And of COURSE abortion is a privacy issue, as well as one of bodily autonomy! It's a medical procedure ffs!
If you think the privacy argument in Roe was spurious, you should see the quote from a 17th century witch hunter about "quickening" that the majority cited as part of the justification for their miscarriage of justice, pardon the pun. THAT'S some bullshit!
I don't need to know her life to know that an abortion was legal for her for the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy.
Abortion is not a privacy issue. How is it a privacy issue?
You'd need to know her life in order to know what was possible for her to do during that time frame. There are myriad reasons why she might not have been able to get an abortion during that time period, not least of which that the entire state of Nebraska has only one place that performs them. That place might be far away from where she lives, she might have to take time off work or be fired etc etc.
I already told you how it's a privacy issue: it's a medical procedure and as such it's nobody's business than your own or that of your doctor.
That's not at all how things work. Just because it's a medical procedure doesn't mean that "privacy" means that it should be allowed at a federal level. You don't just get free reign to medical procedures federally because of "privacy".
Also the abortion is taking a tablet or 2 btw - like what she did here. You can DIY your own abortion with a few tablets up to like 8 weeks old.
Free reign? Like it's a fucking privilege to get doctor-approved medical assistance?
I'm done with your dumb and probably disingenuous arguments against basic bodily autonomy and medical privacy. Have the day you deserve.
Can you explain how abortions should be legal at a federal level because of privacy?
That’s the point I’m making. Abortion isn’t a privacy issue. It’s an elective procedure 99% of the time, and it has nothing to do with privacy whatsoever.
It's a common and often necessary medical procedure and as such, you have it backwards: you need to supply a compelling argument for banning something medically advantageous and sometimes life-saving.
As for privacy, it's none of the government's business which medically approved treatment women receive or don't receive.